Keritot 2b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we inquire concerning the words of the tanna, who emphasized that the number of punishments of karet is thirty-six:

Why do I need the counting?

After all, it would suffice for him to mention the names of the prohibitions in which there is karet, and we could count them ourselves?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

To teach us

that

even

if he performed all of them,

all the transgressions enumerated in the Mishna,

in one lapse of awareness—

that he erred concerning all of them during the same period of time, and thought that all of them were permitted, and on account of this transgressed them unwittingly, and it did not become known to him between one and the other that he had sinned—

he is liable

a separate sin-offering

for each and every one,

since they are separate transgressions. "

A lapse of awareness" means a state of not knowing the prohibition. Whether the law escaped him—he did not know that the Torah prohibited this matter [in circumstances in which the law that one who says "it is permitted" is considered compelled does not apply, as explained in the notes]—or knowledge of the act escaped him—for example, he thought that this woman was his wife and had intercourse with her, and it turned out that she was his sister.

And they said that even if he performed them in "one lapse of awareness"—because specifically concerning one lapse of awareness it is necessary to inform us that he is liable for separate sin-offerings. But concerning separate lapses of awareness—for example, after he transgressed one, it became known to him that he had transgressed a prohibition, and afterward he erred and transgressed the second prohibition— \-

there is no novelty in this. For one who transgresses during separate lapses of awareness is liable for a sin-offering for each act separately, even in the case of one transgression: for example, he erred once and transgressed, afterward learned of the prohibition, and again erred and transgressed it. And all the more so in the case of separate transgressions that he performed during separate lapses of awareness.

And although in truth there is no liability for a sin-offering for all thirty-six instances of karet, since one who neglects the Passover offering and the mitzva of circumcision is not liable for a sin-offering, because they are positive commandments, the tanna emphasized the number in order to teach us that if he transgressed, in one lapse of awareness, all the prohibitions for which there is liability for a sin-offering, he is liable for a separate sin-offering for each and every one.

Furthermore,

we inquired concerning it:

That which we learned [in tractate Shabbat, page 73a]:

[Shabbat 73a]:

the primary labors

of Shabbat are

forty minus one—

why do I need the counting?

And we explain: The tanna emphasized the counting in order to teach us

that if he performed all of them,

all thirty-nine primary labors of Shabbat,

in one lapse of awareness—

he is liable

a separate sin-offering

for each and every one.

And although all the labors are prohibited on account of the same prohibition—from the negative commandment, "You shall not perform any labor"—nevertheless, below they expound from a verse that there is a separate liability for each primary labor in itself. [And the later authorities discussed at length whether each labor on Shabbat has the designation of a prohibition in itself, or whether the multiplication in the verse refers only to the division of sin-offerings. And see the book Totsa’ot Ḥayyim].

And

further,

we inquired concerning it:

That which we learned (

below, page 8a):

four

persons lacking atonement

there are [men or women who were impure and became pure, except that they are still not pure to eat sacred food until they offer the offerings stated concerning them, since immersion and sunset are not sufficient for them as they are for other impure persons. They are: a man with a flux, a woman with a flux, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. The name "persons lacking atonement" is an borrowed designation, for they do not lack atonement but rather "lack purification," since they have not yet been rendered fit to eat sacred food and enter the Temple]—

the counting

of four—

why do I need it?

And we explain: In order

to exclude the view of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who said: There are five

persons lacking atonement

there are!

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A convert

who converted—even though he has already been circumcised and immersed, he is considered

a person lacking atonement,

since he is forbidden to eat sacred food

until the blood is sprinkled upon him

of his offering [which he is obligated to bring as an elevation-offering when he converts]. For it is written (Numbers 15:15), "As you are, so shall the convert be," and we expound from this verse (below, page 9a): Just as your forefathers entered the covenant only through circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice, so converts will enter the covenant only through circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice.

And the first tanna wished to teach us that he does not hold like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and

therefore the tanna

counted

four,

to inform us that a convert is not considered a person lacking atonement. And had he not mentioned a number in his words, we could have said that he holds like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, that indeed a convert is a person lacking atonement, even though he did not mention him, because the tanna did not come to count all the cases of persons lacking atonement, but only some of them, and left aside in his words other persons lacking atonement whom he did not mention. But now, when the tanna stated the number "four," he came to say that there is only this number of persons lacking atonement and no more.

And the reason of the first tanna is explained below (page 8b): A convert is not included among persons lacking atonement, because the offering that he brings is intended to permit him to enter the congregation, and not in order to permit him to eat sacred food or enter the Temple.

Furthermore,

we ask:

That which we learned (

below, page 8b):

four bring

an offering

for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression—

why do I need the counting?

And we explain: In order

to exclude the view of Rabbi Shimon,

according to whose words only three bring an offering for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: The oath concerning a deposit [one whom another demanded to return a deposit that he had deposited with him, and he denied that it was in his possession, and swore falsely concerning his denial; his law is that he is liable for a guilt-offering for the oath by which he denied the deposit]—

[this refers to a person who was demanded to return a deposit entrusted to him, denied that it was in his possession, and swore falsely concerning his denial; he must bring a guilt-offering for the oath by which he denied possessing the deposit]—

its deliberate transgression cannot be atoned for,

and therefore he is atoned for with a guilt-offering only if he transgressed unwittingly!

That is why he taught four,

who bring an offering for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression, in order to include among them the guilt-offering for the oath concerning a deposit when performed deliberately.

Further,

we ask:

That which we learned (

below, page 9a):

five bring one offering for many transgressions—

why do I need the counting?

And we explain:

Because he wished to teach in the latter clause: A nazirite

who became impure brings only one offering of a ritually impure nazirite, even

if he became impure many times.

It is forbidden for a nazirite to become impure through the dead, and if he became impure he invalidates the count of the initial days that he counted. He must purify himself from his impurity by sprinkling from the ashes of the red heifer on the third and seventh days, and immerse on the seventh day, like all those impure through contact with the dead. On the seventh day he also shaves his head. On the eighth day he brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons—one as an elevation-offering and one as a sin-offering—and a ram as a guilt-offering, and begins counting the days of his naziriteship anew. If he became impure many times, he brings one offering for all of them, as will be explained below.

And you find it

that he becomes liable for only one offering for many impurities

for example,

that he became impure once, purified himself from his impurity, and shaved on the seventh day as required, and on that same day it happened

that he became impure on the seventh day,

and again counted seven days with sprinkling, immersion, and shaving,

and again became impure on the seventh day,

so that although he became impure three times, he brings only one offering.

And whose

is the tanna of the Mishna?

It is Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

For he said: Pure naziriteship

when the nazirite begins counting his days of naziriteship anew after becoming pure—beginning

from

day

seven

[after he sprinkled, immersed, and shaved]—

takes effect upon him.

Therefore the many impurities are considered separate, because he again became impure after he had already begun, on the seventh day, to count pure naziriteship.

For on the seventh day of his purification, since he had already become pure from the primary aspect of his impurity after counting seven days, sprinkling, and immersing, he is no longer a primary source of impurity but is one who immersed that day, who is forbidden only to eat teruma until the stars emerge.

Nevertheless, he brings only one offering for all the impurities, since when he became impure a second time [and an additional obligation to bring an offering on account of the second impurity should have taken effect upon him], the time for bringing his offerings for the first impurity—the eighth day—had still not arrived, and therefore he fulfills his obligation with one offering for all the impurities. [See Tosafot in Nazir, page 18 … and it appears that the language of Rashi here should also be explained in this manner.]

[And the reason they said "again became impure and again became impure" is that he wished to clarify the expression "many impurities," which implies at least three impurities—Rashi.]

For if you should say

that this Mishna is according to

Rabbi,

who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

it is so, since

Rabbi holds

that pure naziriteship, until

day

eight

[the day of the offering of his sacrifices]

does not take effect upon him,

then

how can you find it

that he will be liable for only one offering for many impurities?

If he became impure on the seventh day

[on the day of his shaving]

and again became impure on the seventh day,

then in this case it is considered as though

all of it is one long impurity,

for he again became impure at a time when pure naziriteship had not yet taken effect upon him anew. It is not considered one offering for many impurities, but one offering for one impurity.

And if he became impure on the eighth day

[on the day of the offering of his sacrifices], and became pure,

and

again

became impure on the eighth day,

then

since he had emerged

on the eighth day

at the time fit for bringing an offering

for his previous impurity, and he had already become liable for it for the offering of a ritually impure nazirite, and only afterward became impure again, therefore the previous impurity does not join with the new impurity. Accordingly,

he is liable

to bring an offering

for each and every one!

Rather, learn from it: It is Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

Therefore the tanna mentioned the number of five who bring one offering for several obligations, so that we would know that a nazirite is included, and that the ruling is like Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda. It was not sufficient that he explicitly mentioned a nazirite, because had he not emphasized the number five, we could have said that the Mishna is according to Rabbi, and we would have thought that "a nazirite" should not be read in the Mishna.

What is Rabbi, and what is Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda?

As it was taught:

It is written concerning a nazirite who became impure and became pure (Numbers 6:11), "

And he shall sanctify his head

[when he begins counting anew the days of pure naziriteship]

on that day",

and we expound:

On the day of the bringing of his sacrifices,

which is the eighth day of his purification, he begins the count of the days of his new nazirite crown,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: On the day of his shaving,

which is the seventh day of his purification, the new count of the days of his naziriteship begins.

Further,

we inquired concerning

that which we learned (

below, page 9a):

five bring an offering

[a sin-offering]

of varying value.

And these are they: (a) one who swears the oath of testimony [one whom his fellow caused to swear that he would come to testify on his behalf, and he denied under oath and claimed that he did not know testimony for his fellow, and it was found to be false].

(b) One who swears an oath of utterance [who prohibited something to himself by an oath, or accepted upon himself by an oath to do something, and violated his oath].

(c) An impure person who enters the Temple or eats sacred food.

(d), (e) A woman after childbirth and a leper when they become pure from their impurities. [And it is called an offering of varying value because its law changes between a wealthy person and a poor person: a wealthy person brings his offering from an animal species whose price is expensive, and a poor person brings from fowl, whose price is lower].

The counting

of these five who bring an offering of varying value—

why do I need it?

In order to understand the Gemara's answer, several principles in the laws of liability for a sin-offering must be introduced.

In the portion of Leviticus, several sections concerning the sin-offering are written. Among them are the fixed sin-offering of an individual, the sin-offering of a ruler [the king], and the bull for an erroneous ruling of the court. Likewise, there is the sin-offering of varying value, brought for the oath of testimony, the oath of utterance, and an impure person who entered the Temple or ate sacred food. [There are also other offerings of varying value, those of a woman after childbirth and a leper, which are explained in the portions of Tazria and Metzora.] "

The fixed sin-offering of an individual" is the sin-offering brought for most unwitting transgressions, which the individual sinner brings for his sin, a female sheep or a female goat. It is called a "fixed" sin-offering because it does not change between a wealthy person and a poor person. "

The sin-offering of a ruler" is brought by a ruler who unwittingly sinned in those transgressions for which an ordinary person brings a female sheep or a female goat. But the ruler brings for them a male goat as a sin-offering, in place of the female goat brought by an ordinary person, and it is called "the ruler's goat."

A court that erred in its ruling and instructed that one of the transgressions for which an individual who performs it unwittingly brings a female sheep or a female goat is permitted brings a bull as a sin-offering. This is what is called "the bull for an erroneous ruling of the public."

The offering "of varying value" comes to atone for one who entered the Temple or ate sacred food while impure [and although these are unwitting transgressions of prohibitions for which there is karet when deliberate, their law differs from that of other unwitting transgressions involving karet, for which one brings a fixed sin-offering].

Likewise, the sin-offering of varying value atones for one who violates an oath of utterance or an oath of testimony [and there is no karet for them]. It is called "of varying value" because its law changes between a wealthy person and a poor person: a wealthy person brings a female sheep or a female goat; one whose means do not suffice to bring an animal brings a bird as an elevation-offering; and one whose means do not suffice even for a bird brings a sinner's meal-offering.

And we learned in the Mishna in tractate Horayot (page 8b) that a court that erred and permitted one of the transgressions for which an individual is liable to bring an offering of varying value is not liable to bring the bull for an erroneous ruling, because the bull for an erroneous ruling comes only for an erroneous instruction concerning transgressions for which an individual brings a fixed sin-offering.

And concerning the law of the ruler, the tannaim there disagreed:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says that the ruler is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for all those transgressions for which an ordinary person is liable to bring an offering of varying value. His reason is that in the portion of the offering of varying value it is written (Leviticus 5:7–11), "And if his means do not suffice." And likewise, "And if his means do not attain." Rabbi Yosei the Galilean expounds: It is one who comes to poverty who brings an offering of varying value; the ruler is excluded, since he will never come to poverty.

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon say that the ruler is liable for an offering of varying value, like an ordinary person.

And Rabbi Eliezer distinguishes between impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, for which there is liability for karet, and oaths, for which there is no karet. For the ruler's goat comes for every unwitting transgression involving karet, including those for which an individual brings an offering of varying value. Therefore he brings a sin-offering goat even for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, since when performed deliberately there is liability for karet.

But concerning the oath of testimony and the oath of utterance, for which there is no karet, the law of the ruler is equal to the law of an ordinary person: he brings an offering of varying value.

And according to this we answer that the tanna stated the counting of "five are liable to bring an offering of varying value"

because he teaches in the latter clause

of the Mishna in tractate Horayot:

A ruler—

is like them!

For his law is like that of the great court. That is to say, just as the great court does not bring the bull for an erroneous ruling except for having instructed that a transgression for which an individual brings a fixed sin-offering is permitted, and not for transgressions for which an individual is liable to bring an offering of varying value, so the ruler does not bring a goat for these transgressions.

And Rabbi Eliezer disagrees there and holds that a ruler brings a goat even for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, as with the other sins, despite the fact that an individual brings an offering of varying value for them.

Therefore

teach

in the Mishna below in our tractate the number

five,

to teach that every person who brings an offering for one of these five matters—including a ruler who became obligated to bring a sin-offering for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, for which there is karet—brings specifically an offering of varying value, and there is no one who brings a fixed sin-offering for them. And

to exclude the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: A ruler brings

for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things

a goat.

For had the tanna not stated the number "five," we would have thought to emend the Mishna and establish it as referring to only four, and according to Rabbi Eliezer. We would have removed impurity of the Temple and its sacred things from it, since not everyone brings an offering of varying value for it—for example, the ruler, according to Rabbi Eliezer. For according to Rabbi Eliezer, the ruler is liable to bring a goat for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, and not an offering of varying value.

Rather, this Mishna is either according to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who holds that the ruler is entirely exempt for all the offerings for which an ordinary person is liable to bring an offering of varying value, or according to Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon, who hold that the ruler brings an offering of varying value [and not a goat] even for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, whose deliberate violation involves karet. Therefore it properly teaches "five," because all those liable for an offering for all five of these transgressions are liable for an offering of varying value.

Further,

we inquired concerning

that which we learned (

in tractate Bava Kamma, page 2a):

four primary categories of damages—

why do I need the counting?

To exclude the view of Rabbi Oshaya.

For he said (

there, page 4b):

There are thirteen primary categories of damages.

[And although the name "primary category" is given to a law that has secondary categories, whereas the primary categories of Rabbi Oshaya have no secondary categories, nevertheless they are called primary categories because their law is equal to the law of the four primary categories—that he pays from his best land.]

And according to Rabbi Oshaya—

the counting

of his

why do I need it?

to exclude the [opinion] of Rabbi Hiyya.

For he said (

there):

twenty-four primary categories of damages.

And according to Rabbi Hiyya—

why do I need the enumeration?

To exclude an informer,

who informed against his fellow to gentiles, and through this caused him monetary loss.

And one who renders [an offering] pigul,

a kohen who slaughtered an offering of an Israelite with the intention of eating it outside its designated time, so that it became invalid, and it turns out that he caused him to lose his offering.

And we return to explain the words of Rabbi Yohanan:

The Master said

Rabbi Yohanan]: the tannai included an enumeration in order to teach

that if he performed all of them in one lapse of awareness,

that

he is liable for each one and one.

And we raise an objection to this:

Granted

that he should be

entirely exempt

from a sin-offering when he performed all of them inadvertently, in one lapse of awareness,

you cannot say that.

For it is written (

Leviticus 18:29), “

For everyone who shall perform any of all these abominations—

and they shall be cut off,” and since karet is written for all of them in the case of an intentional act, consequently, in the case of an inadvertent act, it is an inadvertent violation carrying karet, for which he is liable to a sin-offering. [So explained the RagמH, and see the Shita Mekubetzet, omissions, letter 14.]

а поскольку для всех этих нарушений, совершённых намеренно, в Торе упомянуто наказание карет — духовное истребление, — само собой следует, что при совершении по ошибке это считается ошибкой в отношении нарушения, наказуемого каретом, и человек обязан принести очистительную жертву. [Так объяснил Рав Менахем Меири; см. также Шита Мекубецет, дополнения, буква 14.]

Rather,

what should be asked is:

say

if

he transgressed one, he became liable for one,

but even if

he transgressed

against

all of them in one lapse of awareness,

also

he is liable for only one,

for from where do we know that he does not discharge his obligation with one sin-offering for all of them together? [

The Hafetz Hayyim, of blessed memory, wrote in Likutei Halakhot that the question applies only to forbidden sexual relations, since the Torah included all of them under one karet at the end of the portion of Aharei Mot. But concerning the other prohibitions, where karet is written separately for each one, it is obvious that he is liable for each one separately, and the exposition below is not needed for this.

Indeed, above, at the beginning of the Gemara, it implies that there is a novel point concerning all those liable to karet: that he is liable for each of them separately. For this reason the tannai stated an enumeration of thirty-six instances of karet. The same is implied by Maimonides, chapter 4 of Laws of Unintentional Transgressions, halakha 1.]

Rabbi Yohanan said: For this reason karet was stated concerning his sister—

even though concerning all the forbidden sexual relations one karet is written that includes all of them together, as it is written in the portion of Aharei Mot, “and the souls that perform [these acts] shall be cut off,” nevertheless the Torah wrote a separate karet concerning the forbidden relation with one’s sister.

For it is written in the portion of Kedoshim, “And a man who takes his sister—and they shall be cut off before the eyes of the members of their people.”

And why did his sister depart from the general rule, so that karet would be written concerning her separately? In order

to divide,

and to say that for each and every one of the liabilities for karet among the forbidden sexual relations, he becomes liable for a separate sin-offering, even if he performs them in one lapse of awareness.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye challenged this: Say

that only with regard to

his sister, which the verse specified

in her case

the verse

a special karet,

let him become liable for one concerning her

separately, when he performed it together with the others.

And

if

all of them,

concerning whom the verse did not write karet for each one, but included them under one karet, let us say:

since

he performed them

in one lapse of awareness, he should become liable for only one—for all of them were included under one karet.

And we are astonished at Rav Bibi’s question:

And according to Rav Bibi bar Abaye,

does he not

have this teaching that was taught in a beraita: Anything that was included in a general rule and departed from the general rule in order to teach—

it did not depart in order to teach about itself

alone;

rather, it departed in order to teach about the entire general rule!?

But this is one of the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded!?

How:

it is written (Leviticus 7:20), “

And the person who eats the flesh

of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord, while his impurity is upon him, that person shall be cut off from his peoples.” And it is difficult: why is a special verse needed concerning peace-offerings to make one who ate them in impurity liable to karet?

Were peace-offerings not included among all the sacred offerings

for which karet was stated for eating them in impurity

was?

For it is written in the portion of Emor (Leviticus 22:3), “Say to them for your generations: Any man of all your offspring who approaches the sacred offerings that the Children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, while his impurity is upon him—that person shall be cut off from before Me!”

And if so, one must ask:

why did they depart

peace-offerings, to be written with karet separately?

Rather, the verse came

to juxtapose them,

and to teach:

Just as peace-offerings, which are offerings of the altar, and for which one is liable

karet if he eats them in impurity—

so too, all that are offerings of the altar, one is liable for them

karet.

Offerings for the repair of the Temple

depart, since one who eats them in bodily impurity is not liable to karet.

And if so, concerning his sister also let us say that she departed from the general rule in order to teach about the entire general rule, and to say: just as his sister, who is subject to karet and for whom he is liable separately, so too, everyone who is subject to karet, he is liable for him separately. Why, then, did Rav Bibi object that there should be a separate liability only for his sister?

And we answered:

Rav Bibi bar Abaye can say to you—

and from it,

from that same beraita with which you challenge me—

from it itself I will bring proof for my words!

Did you not say there,

with regard to peace-offerings:

Offerings for the repair of the Temple depart! [For when peace-offerings departed from the general rule in order to teach about the entire general rule, that one is liable for it to karet, this was said only with regard to offerings resembling peace-offerings, which are offerings of the altar, but not with regard to offerings for the repair of the Temple.] And if so,

[То есть мирные жертвы были выделены из общего правила, чтобы научить, что за все подобные им жертвы полагается карет, только в отношении святынь, сходных с мирными жертвами, — жертв, предназначенных для жертвенника, — но не в отношении святынь, предназначенных для ремонта Храма.] Итак,

here too,

let us say that the karet of his sister teaches only about the general rule resembling it, and this is how we learn:

Just as his sister,

concerning whom the Torah specified a separate liability, is

distinctive

in this respect

because she is a forbidden relation, and she has no permitted status during the lifetime of the one who forbids her,

since it is impossible for her to become permitted to her brother;

so too, every

forbidden relation is one for which he is liable separately only if it is a forbidden relation

that has no permitted status during the lifetime of the one who forbids her.

The wife of a married man departs, for she has permitted status during the lifetime of her husband,

since he is the one who forbids her to the entire world through the betrothal with which he betrothed her, and he can permit her through divorcing her with a bill of divorce. And since she does not resemble the forbidden relation of his sister, she is excluded, so that they will not be liable for her separately when he transgressed against her and the other forbidden sexual relations in one lapse of awareness.

On the basis of this, Rav Bibi bar Abaye objected that it should be said that concerning the wife of a married man he is not liable for her separately, because his sister, who departed from the general rule, does not teach concerning the wife of a married man, who has permitted status during the lifetime of the one who forbids her. [And the RagמH added that a menstruating woman also has permitted status and will not be learned from his sister.] If so, Rav Bibi bar Abaye’s objection still remains!

And we answered:

Rabbi Yona said—and some say Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua: The verse said

in the portion of the forbidden sexual relations at the end of Aharei Mot (Leviticus 18:29), “

For everyone who shall perform any of these abominations

and they shall be cut off”—

all the forbidden sexual relations were juxtaposed to his sister,

for “all the abominations” includes all the forbidden sexual relations: his sister, the wife of a married man, a menstruating woman, and likewise all of them.

To teach us:

Just as for his sister one is liable separately

even if he transgressed against her together with the others—for this division is learned from the fact that his sister departed separately—

so too, for every

forbidden sexual relation, including the wife of a married man,

one is liable separately.

And we object:

And according to Rabbi Yitzhak, who said:

all the forbidden sexual relations that are

liable to karet were

included

under one karet

were [that is, they were all included in that same karet, as it is written (Leviticus 18:29), “For everyone who shall perform—and the souls that perform [these acts] shall be cut off”],

[то есть все они были включены в одно наказание каретом, как сказано (Ваикра 18:29): «Ибо всякий, кто совершит — будут истреблены души совершивших»],

and why was karet stated concerning his sister,

only in order

to judge her

that her punishment is

by karet and not by lashes.

And his intention is to disagree with the tannai of the Mishna in tractate Makkot (23b), who said that anyone who transgresses a prohibition for which there is karet is liable to lashes like all the other prohibitions, and once he has received lashes he is absolved from karet. Rabbi Yitzhak comes to expound from this—that his sister departed with a separate karet—that with a prohibition for which there is karet, karet is the sole punishment for the prohibition, and there are no lashes for it even if they warned him. And since he expounds that the karet of his sister departed for this purpose, then

from where does he derive the division?

And we answered:

he derives it from “

And to a woman in the impurity of her menstruation you shall not approach” (Leviticus 18:19). The words “and to a woman” are superfluous, for it should have written, “You shall not approach a menstruating woman.” And the superfluity comes

(Ваикра 18:19). Слова «и к женщине» избыточны: можно было написать «к ниде не приближайся». Эта избыточность пришла

to divide concerning each and every woman, [that is, to make one liable for a sin-offering separately for each and every designation of prohibition in the portion of the forbidden sexual relations].

[то есть установить отдельную очистительную жертву за каждый отдельный вид запрета, перечисленный в разделе о запрещённых связях].

And according to this we object:

And

according to

the Rabbis too, they should derive

the division

from “

and to a woman in the impurity of her menstruation,” and why did they need to learn it from the fact that the karet of “his sister” departed?

почему же им понадобилось учить это из того, что наказание каретом за «сестру» было выделено?

And we answered:

Indeed, that is so; in truth, the Rabbis too learn the division from “and to a woman in the impurity of her menstruation,” and not from the karet of his sister.

in truth, the Rabbis too derive the division of liabilities from “and to a woman in the impurity of her menstruation,” and not from the karet of one’s sister.

Rather, the karet of his sister—

for what purpose does it come? It is needed to divide concerning his sister, his father’s sister, and his mother’s sister,

so that you should not say: since all of them are forbidden on account of brotherhood, they should be considered one designation of prohibition, and he should be liable for only one sin-offering for them if he transgressed against all of them in one lapse of awareness. Therefore his sister departed in order to divide, to make one liable separately for each one.

And we object:

These

three forbidden sexual relations involving brotherhood—

why

is it necessary

for them that his sister depart for the purpose of

that the case of one’s sister be singled out in order

dividing?

For

they have

designations

of prohibition that are

divided,

for even though all of them are forbidden by the prohibition of brotherhood, nevertheless each one is forbidden under a distinct designation of forbidden relation and by a distinct prohibition [as it is written (Leviticus 18:9), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister”; and there (verse 12), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister”; and there (verse 13), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister”].

And

they are also

bodies

of forbidden relations that are

divided.

Since there are different women here, each one forbidden by a different prohibition, it is obvious that he is liable separately for each one, like all the prohibitions that we learned from “and to a woman,” that if he performed them in one lapse of awareness he is liable separately for each one.

Rather, say

that his sister departed with karet separately in order

to divide concerning his sister, who is

also

his father’s sister and who is

also

his mother’s sister, to teach that if he has intercourse with her inadvertently he is liable for three sin-offerings. [This is possible only with a thoroughly wicked son of a thoroughly wicked man: one man had intercourse with his mother and she bore him two daughters, and he had intercourse with one of them and fathered a son, and this son had intercourse with the second daughter, who was his paternal half-sister, his mother’s sister, and his father’s sister (through his mother).]

и научить: если человек вступил с ней в связь по ошибке, он обязан принести три очистительные жертвы. [Это возможно только в случае, когда преступник является сыном преступника: один человек вступил в связь со своей матерью, и она родила ему двух дочерей; затем он вступил в связь с одной из них, и она родила сына; этот сын вступил в связь со второй дочерью, которая для него является сестрой по отцу, тёткой по матери и тёткой по отцу.]

In this manner there are divided designations of prohibition in a single body, and it might have entered one’s mind that he is liable for only one, because what we learned from “and to a woman”—to be liable for each one—might apply only when he performed three separate acts with three bodies and three divided designations. Therefore the Torah wrote an additional karet concerning his sister, to include that even if he transgressed the three prohibitions of brotherhood in one act with one body, he is liable separately for each one.

And Rabbi Yitzhak,

who derives from the karet of his sister that those liable to karet are exempt from lashes,

this matter, the division concerning his sister who is his father’s sister and his mother’s sister, so that he is liable for three sin-offerings—

the division of liability in the case of one’s sister who is also his paternal aunt and maternal aunt, establishing liability for three sin-offerings—

from where does he derive it?

For according to his words, the karet of his sister is not superfluous to teach this law.

He derives it from “

his sister”

at the end of the verse [this is the version of the Shita Mekubetzet].

[this is the version of the Shita Mekubetzet].

For it is written

at the end of the verse, “And a man who takes his sister, and they shall be cut off before the eyes of the members of their people”—“

He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister.”

That is, the karet written at the beginning of the verse concerning the sister mentioned at its beginning also applies to the sister at the end of the verse. It is found that the sister at the end of the verse departed, to judge her with a superfluous karet, in order to divide concerning his sister who is his father’s sister and his mother’s sister.

And the Rabbis,

who hold that those liable to karet receive lashes, and who derive from the karet written at the beginning of the verse the division concerning his sister who is his father’s sister and his mother’s sister—if so,

“

his sister”

at the end of the verse—for what do they use it?